Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I want to mount my heavy flamer on the front claw of my Defiler (mainly for asthetics).

So when measuring the template it would be further forward than if it was on the left arm mounting.

Would this be dis-allowed due to modelling an advantage?

If it was immobilised this would be a dis-advantage as it cannot turn on the spot just it's turret/body.
But, would be able to move it's claw (dread CCW).

Mainly just asking for any RAW i've missed and opinions.

Thanks

Mr-_-Flidd wrote:I want to mount my heavy flamer on the front claw of my Defiler (mainly for asthetics).

So when measuring the template it would be further forward than if it was on the left arm mounting.

Would this be dis-allowed due to modelling an advantage?

If it was immobilised this would be a dis-advantage as it cannot turn on the spot just it's turret/body.
But, would be able to move it's claw (dread CCW).

Mainly just asking for any RAW i've missed and opinions.

Thanks

RaW converting models is not permitted.

So in short, go for it. If anyone complains, just measure it as though it was an unconverted model. That way you can "prove" it's only an aesthetic choice.

As for my own opinion, I would allow it, but would be hesitant to allow you to move the claw during the game.

Mr-_-Flidd wrote:Would this be dis-allowed due to modelling an advantage?

That would depend entirely on your opponent. Some players won't care, some will hate it.

If it was immobilised this would be a dis-advantage as it cannot turn on the spot just it's turret/body.

It can't turn it's body either, immobilised or no.

There are no rules allowing walkers to pivot at the waist in the current edition (there was such a rule last edition). In 5th edition 40K, all weapons mounted on a walker have a 45 degree arc to the walker's front, regardless of how they are mounted.

As for my own opinion, I would allow it, but would be hesitant to allow you to move the claw during the game.

I didn't actually mean i'd move it just in a IRL sense. It's glued so it only moves up and down anyway!

It can't turn it's body either, immobilised or no.

There are no rules allowing walkers to pivot at the waist in the current edition (there was such a rule last edition). In 5th edition 40K, all weapons mounted on a walker have a 45 degree arc to the walker's front, regardless of how they are mounted.

That I did not know, just assumed it was so.


Thanks lads, that just about answers all my doubts. Claw flamer it is!

If they care about that extra half inch, crucify them.

Karon wrote:If they care about that extra half inch, crucify them.

Umm take another look at the Defiler model. The front claw could give almost 4" of extra range to the flamer template.

personally i'd hit it with modelling to advantage.

If you placed it below the battle canon or in the general proximity of the torso then i'd be cool with it, but imo, if a model has a weapon mount point and stipulates what can be on the mount point then the weapons should be restricted to those mount points and no where else.

Where's the rule that says you can't modify models?

I agree if you make a change that is clearly a huge abuse -- such as mounting a weapon on a 12-inch long arm, or putting a huge vane on top to provide cover -- people will rightly complain.

But there's nothing wrong with a bit of creative conversion work. A lot of the fun of 40K is the modelling opportunities.

The thing is that mounting the flamer on one of the front claws instead of up on the torso is modeling for advantage. The original post even alludes to some of the anticipated advantages which would be gained by doing so.

But whether or not the model would be disallowed because of the attempt at modeling for disadvantage isn't a rules question, it's a sportsmanship question. On sportsmanship grounds, I think modeling for advantage is sufficient grounds to either disallow the model or require it to be played as typically assembled.

Kilkrazy wrote:Where's the rule that says you can't modify models?

I agree if you make a change that is clearly a huge abuse -- such as mounting a weapon on a 12-inch long arm, or putting a huge vane on top to provide cover -- people will rightly complain.

But there's nothing wrong with a bit of creative conversion work. A lot of the fun of 40K is the modelling opportunities.

There is no rule allowing conversions, meanin gyou cannot convert.

Strictly all models must be Citadel figures (the only models given permission to play the game) and no permission is given to alter these models in any way.

You almost fell into the "welll it doesn't say I *can't*" there Killkrazy

Note the above is the actual rules, how I play is very different - I generally follow the "rule of cool", so even if something could be abusive if I think it looks awesome, and thus was likely modelled that way TO look awesome and the benefits were not the primary reason, I would have no issue with it.

Pah and Piffle! I say to the "no rule allowing conversions".

We don't need GW's permission to do what we like with our own models.

Returning to the original topic, I personally am not so anal about the game that I would think someone could win by mounting one weapon on one model one inch closer the enemy, so I would be fine with it.

However someone else might object.

Kilkrazy wrote:We don't need GW's permission to do what we like with our own models.

But we do need it to play the game with them.

GW dont give two hoots what you do to your model outside of the game (a concept one poster failed to "get"), however when you come to play the game by their rules you are restricted to what they say you CAN do - and converting the model is not in the allowed list.

The general jist I got is that most people won't care.

But, if they do just measure from the intended mounting.

That's what i got too.

I liek it, it sounds like a funky thing. I'd be tempted to mountone on the other claw as well. Again, just for looks as it wouldn't actually do anything. But would look funky! (much like the servo harness on my IW Chaos Lord).

nosferatu1001 wrote:GW dont give two hoots what you do to your model outside of the game (a concept one poster failed to "get"), however when you come to play the game by their rules you are restricted to what they say you CAN do - and converting the model is not in the allowed list.

To put this in perspective, since this sort of statement invariably leads to an endless argument on converting and the rules: Nobody is actually saying that you can't use conversions in your games. In practice, so long as you are not obviously modelling for an advantage, the vast majority of players have no problems with conversions regardless of whether or not the rules specifically allow them.

The argument against them on the basis of the rules is simply a cover situation for those times when someone is modelling for advantage. If someone wants to get silly with modelling, the 'rules don't actually allow conversions' argument is the counter.

I've decided to magnetize both the claw and somewhere near the intended mounting. That way if someone has a problem pre game pop it off and pop it on!

10 mins work will save me hassle!

nosferatu1001 wrote:GW dont give two hoots what you do to your model outside of the game (a concept one poster failed to "get"), however when you come to play the game by their rules you are restricted to what they say you CAN do - and converting the model is not in the allowed list.

Stop with the strawman arguments. There is no rule anywhere in the rulebook telling you to put your models together the "normal" way (which is never defined) either. By your logic, no model is legal as they must have been assembled in some manner not provided for in the rules.

@thebetter GW provide build instructions for how an item is to go together, generally on the back of a box or on a piece of paper...

I would say that is the normal way to put together items.

What?

I like my looted rhinos like this, they uhh..... hold more guys

WTB Sailrhino.

Seriphis wrote:@thebetter GW provide build instructions for how an item is to go together, generally on the back of a box or on a piece of paper...

I would say that is the normal way to put together items.

Can you find a rule for this in a current rulebook or a GW FAQ? If not, this is not an official rule.

If we are going to start using unofficial rules sources just because they are from GW, then conversions are 100% legal, as GW encourages you to convert models. But as I said, those are unofficial.

There are no rules whatsoever indicating how models should be assembled, beyond gluing them to their bases. To say that conversions are illegal would require saying that unconverted models are also illegal, as there is no way to distinguish between the two legally.

I'm not claiming any official rule, simply indicating the definition of normal construction of a model.

The product is sold with an intended build outline. While these are rules they are GW approved construction guides for the models.

While not being 'rules' i would consider the fact that they indicate without question where the relevant mount points where outlined are located that this would be an authoritive point of reference, similar to a codex.

You are correct though, there are no rules saying the model has to be built. For that matter theres no rules indicating either way what has to be used to represent the units. However the codex indicates through the images what model represents what unit/model in the army.

The whole conversion legality discussion has been done to death before. I have already pointed out the reasoning behind it, but since people seem determined to dredge it up all over again anyway for no good reason, I think it's time for a lock. The original question has been answered as well as it's going to be.